Yes there is. It’s just that we don’t know much about it. As Michael Albert has said, we have a nature, and this nature is a function of our evolution and our culture. Everything we do is compatible with human nature, because it’s humans doing it. Being a mass murderer is compatible with human nature, as is being a humanitarian volunteer worker.

“Murder and genocide are not natural for our species. ”

What does that even mean? What would count as “natural” for human beings? Under what circumstances?

In any case, even if it were true that humans were more predisposed to acting violently, this would be even MORE of a reason to build institutions that bring the positive sides of our nature to the fore, and make the negative side less likely to rear its ugly head.

]]>By: lichenhttp://dissidentvoice.org/2010/09/murder-and-genocide-are-natural-therefore-rebel/#comment-73279
Thu, 09 Sep 2010 23:32:13 +0000http://dissidentvoice.org/?p=21627#comment-73279Priveleged westerners want to enshrine the global heirarchy by ignoring the pleas of first-world peoples, island nations, and Africa who are already suffering the effects of global warming caused by the criminal burning of oil, coal, gas, and nuclear plants.
]]>By: lichenhttp://dissidentvoice.org/2010/09/murder-and-genocide-are-natural-therefore-rebel/#comment-73275
Thu, 09 Sep 2010 22:57:28 +0000http://dissidentvoice.org/?p=21627#comment-73275There is no “human nature.” Murder and genocide are not natural for our species. Humans are born equally capable of being turned into kind loving creatures who can live cooperatively and be incapable of violence and inequality, or people primed for murder and genocide. It depends on how the children are treated; indeed, the murder of the child’s psyche, the beating of his body, the forced hierarchy all begin and are most important existent in the home-family life. If people stop beating children, disrespecting their bodies, emotions, rights, and self-knowledge, than murder and genocide will dissapear into the past, as will the fossil fuels that are causing global warming, which environmentalists, indigenous activists, and many others have gotten together to promote earth-friendly, social justice solutions that don’t involve carbon trading. Too bad people who watch fox news never learn about them, or how much healthier a vegan diet is for both human and earth.

Right wing libertarians beleive in beating children, sending them to restrictive schools, and spewing hate at them; so clearly they would be interested in defining themselves as murderers; they are.

]]>By: Cameronhttp://dissidentvoice.org/2010/09/murder-and-genocide-are-natural-therefore-rebel/#comment-73235
Thu, 09 Sep 2010 16:10:00 +0000http://dissidentvoice.org/?p=21627#comment-73235Ape societies display different behavior/culture depending on their living conditions. In other words they adapt to the environment they live in. Those in jungles enjoy more abundance and therefore behave differently. Survival of the fittest applies because animals cannot produce. They’re completely dependent on the available food. Humans (social animal) on the other hand can produce and live in abundance and in harmony with nature. We don’t need to compete with each other or other animals and therefore use violence in the manner that other animals do to survive.
The problem is that we’re producing for the wrong reason. We produce to create profit. Owners close factories and work places when sufficient profits cannot be created. We’re not producing to satisfy our needs. Rancourt says it’s natural to behave like other animals but then he says we don’t have to because “human species is not ecologically threatened by natural competitors”. Am I correct to make that assumption?
It seems that the author is focusing on the First-World middleclass as the agent of change. I suppose Rancourt identifies this layer by its income not its role in production. This layer is in the process of being squeezed out to the point of extinction. The current economic crisis is gradually destroying this so called middle class, the lifestyle that it could not afford since the 70s. Then what?
The real agent of change is the working class. This is a class war (between capital and labor) not an animal instinct based war against “rogue warlords and hierarchies”.
]]>By: bozhhttp://dissidentvoice.org/2010/09/murder-and-genocide-are-natural-therefore-rebel/#comment-73229
Thu, 09 Sep 2010 15:28:36 +0000http://dissidentvoice.org/?p=21627#comment-73229I prefer the labe “first comers”. Yes, it appears as a broad term. Apaches or zunis may have arrived even before haydas, salish, crees. But then who knows? Maybe inuit came before any of the others but decided to stay. As population grew some had to leave the nest.
Or, the continents being connected eons ago, people migrated eons ago all over the globe including buffalonia .
Qusetion arises why did, say, scythians migrate south via turkey and all the way to germany from lush steppes of northwest of caspian see?
And world pop amounting to just, say 20-100 mn people? And fish, game fruit and nut trees were in abundance. tnx
I understand that even 100 yrs ago or so most lakes in canada teemed with fish. One could scoop fish by just dunking in a creel anywhere on a lake. tnx
]]>By: bozhhttp://dissidentvoice.org/2010/09/murder-and-genocide-are-natural-therefore-rebel/#comment-73227
Thu, 09 Sep 2010 15:09:04 +0000http://dissidentvoice.org/?p=21627#comment-73227“Our primal drive for murder and genocide” appears, as far as implicatory structure of language goes, a conclusion.
In addition, s’me events preceded murdering [?alien] people. Even if we would accept “primal” urge to commit genocide and murder as valid, we still face two vital questions: had anything gone ahead of this urge to slay people and what actually “primal” stands for or even if it stands for anything save a fancy?

“Primal” means, i think, first, best. So, to a person who acccepts the term as valid-factual, no event preceded it; save god, nature, or god-nature.
But how about the ‘primal’ urge [or first of all] to survive or save life; thus to eat; or the documented fact that a person deliberately or instictively saved a woman’s or child’s life by stepping in front of them to save them from a vehicle, bear, or gunman?
Are these then secondary insticts or urges. This wld imply a hierarchy of instincts-urges?
But with no way of ever knowing which is which on the scale of urges. Nevertheless, people commit suicide and “primal” urge to survive disaapears. The first urge to survive, replaced with first urge to end shame, guilt, pain, occupation, etc., by killing oneself.

The following description of events appears more satisfactory to me: nature is infinitely valued; ranging from much goodness [humna love, respect, equality] to much badness [murder, hurricanes, earthquakes]

And if armed with apodictic truth, we choose to err– if we must err or in truth do err– on the side of not murdering, exploiting, abusing.

But we all know who is preventing us from making such choices! More could be said. tnx

Just one thing: In case you were unaware, the term “aboriginal” is offensive to many Indigenous peoples.

In 2008, the chiefs of the 42 member communities of the Anishinabek Nation characterized the term “Aboriginal” as “another means of assimilation through the displacement of our First Nation-specific inherent and treaty rights.”

Grand Council Chief John Beaucage said the use of the term was “offensive.” Chief Patrick Madahbee of Aundeck Omni Kaning said: “We are not Indians, natives, or Aboriginal. We are, always have been and always will be Anishinabek.”